The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

How's the search for Nicola's "English Tory" quotes going?

Oh look, a diversion. I wonder why.

I'll get back to you after vat returns, other admin, and a two week backlog of work.

In fact, I'll take the Nicola amendment, and get back to you after brexit and after there's 60% support for indie. In other words I'm saying it's "very likely" to be soon.

[eFestivals]

PS: I have mentioned that it's hard to find, because it's hidden by so many other Scots in that movement that's got no xenophobia banging on about "english tories". 

Which is rather unfortunate for what you keep on trying to claim, isn't it?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

there's mention/suggestion of that via the 'row', yes, and I've never said there wasn't.

Because those creating the row are claiming that's what he did. When the journos sometimes have as little brain as many of their readers, it's going to happen.

I've no seen a single example that's not been prompted towards it via the 'row', tho, and you've been unable to present one to me.

Always glad to help...

London's Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says Scottish nationalism is the same as racism

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799.amp

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Always glad to help...

London's Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says Scottish nationalism is the same as racism

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799.amp

only Scottish journos too stupid to understand words?  That's not a good look.

Subheading: spot on. First line: laughable.

But it does accurately quote his words.

There's none as stupid as the stupid. As you've already admitted Khan didn't say that, it can only be stupid.

[LJS]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh look, a diversion. I wonder why.

I'll get back to you after vat returns, other admin, and a two week backlog of work.

In fact, I'll take the Nicola amendment, and get back to you after brexit and after there's 60% support for indie. In other words I'm saying it's "very likely" to be soon.

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit you made it up? aka lying

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: I have mentioned that it's hard to find, because it's hidden by so many other Scots in that movement that's got no xenophobia banging on about "english tories". 

Yes  you've used that excuse before. As it's easy to find texts for lots of Nicola's speeches, it's a crap excuse. Because you lied about Nicola saying it.

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Which is rather unfortunate for what you keep on trying to claim, isn't it?

Not at all. Unlike you, I don't think a couple of hundred sad guys sitting in their pants ranting on their keyboards are representative of the SNP or the broader independence movement. Just as I don't claim a few demented orangemen in George square are typical of those who support remaining in the UK.

[eFestivals]

There’s no difference between those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion.

It's *clearly* about divisive politics. 

Anyone thinking differently has their own issues, perhaps best called 'prejudices'.

Which is rather funny, I think.

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

only Scottish journos too stupid to understand words?  That's not a good look.

Subheading: spot on. First line: laughable.

But it does accurately quote his words.

Only English website owners too arrogant to admit when they are wrong.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's none as stupid as the stupid. As you've already admitted Khan didn't say that, it can only be stupid.

I've told you exactly why I believe it was reported that way. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit you made it up? aka lying

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sturgeon+"english+tories"&*

About 6,330 results

As I say, rather amusing in a convo with claims of no xenophobia.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

I've told you exactly why I believe it was reported that way. 

because you're just as stupid?

Quote

There’s no difference between those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

 

There’s no difference between those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion.

It's *clearly* about divisive politics. 

Anyone thinking differently has their own issues, perhaps best called 'prejudices'.

Which is rather funny, I think.

What's funny is that none of Khan's description fit the SNP.

They aren't trying to "divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish"

and they aren't trying to "divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion"

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sturgeon+"english+tories"&*

 

About 6,330 results

As I say, rather amusing in a convo with claims of no xenophobia.

 

I searched for "Neil English Idiot" & got

Page 2 of about 139,000,000

 

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

They aren't trying to "divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish"

Just as I tend to say 'Scots' here, what is really meant is 'people in Scotland'. 

(the 'English' applies [rather than UK] for the context Khan is using, where he's specifically coming from his position as Major of London)

Anyone wanting to be really petty, or someone wanting to create divisions when there are none, could flag up his easy/loose not-quite-specific-enough use of language and take offence - false grievance, that's never happened before - while others will be laughing at them for having done the same countless numbers of times. 

And of course, Khan is coming from a position of inclusiveness, where people in England count as English and people in Scotland count as Scottish ... while those in Scotland who want to be considered inclusive are wanting to flag up that some in Scotland are not Scots.

We can carry on, if you like?

Edited March 4, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

and they aren't trying to "divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion"

what, there's no background of people living in Scotland and people living in England? Really?

Then you have nothing to want indie for. 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

OMFG.

are you really so brain dead you think any's any part of what I'd argued?

 

No idea, tho I do know it was pointed out that 

1. the SNP demand powers for the SG but don't use them, so there doesn't seem much point in giving them any more.
2. the SNP demand powers but then say they're better done by Westminster for the moment. We do all love a bit of independence.
3. the SNP use divisive politics
4. there's no economic case for indy.
5. there's no Scottish support for an indyref.
6. if there was an indyref there's not enough Scottish support for victory.
7. Westminster will consider a ref request if Sturgeon has the bottle to want one, which she doesn't seem to want.

it's funny how no one on the snippers side wants to discuss those facts, and instead are running around like headless chickens lying about what Khan said and what May said.

 

The SNP are in control but don't want a ref.

Get back to us when they do.

So, conference season.....as I was saying, Labour and the Tories have had the chance to highlight their policies and priorities around how they would lead the people in Scotland.

You have helpfully highlighted my point in your 7 point reply.

In each of your 7 points you mention the snp or Indy. The Tory unionist mob have only the union and outrage at Scotland paying higher taxes to go on. Fair enough, people support this although remember they only have 1 mp.

Labour have snp bad plus this federal uk bullshit that even Labour don't support.

Its not the snps fault that Labour are the 3rd party and becoming irrelevant.

[lost]

I don't really understand Surgeons tactic of narrowing the indy debate down to a single issue of staying in the single market. 
Obviously as Spain has said it will block any attempts for part of the UK to stay in, she knows its impossible for just Scotland to stay in but what if the UK stays in or gets very good access rights? She's either going to have to argue that there is enough difference to still have a referendum or try to push the debate back to something else (and each time she does this it must weaken her position) 

Its also not very Mel Gibson is it " You may take our lives but you'll never take our trade access to Croatia's internal market!!" 

Edited March 4, 2017 by lost

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So, conference season.....as I was saying, Labour and the Tories have had the chance to highlight their policies and priorities around how they would lead the people in Scotland.

You have helpfully highlighted my point in your 7 point reply.

In each of your 7 points you mention the snp or Indy. The Tory unionist mob have only the union and outrage at Scotland paying higher taxes to go on. Fair enough, people support this although remember they only have 1 mp.

Labour have snp bad plus this federal uk bullshit that even Labour don't support.

Its not the snps fault that Labour are the 3rd party and becoming irrelevant.

because....?

The answer to everything is indy. Wind blowing in the wrong direction? Indy. Washing not drying quickly enough? Indy. Not enough fish in the sea? Indy. Etc, etc, etc.

For you and every other snipper, the first and most important thing when choosing the party to vote for is? Indy.

And in the meantime, the SNP do fuck all. They're not even wanting the powers over welfare that Westminster is trying to give them. You know, where they could make a difference, but don't want to.

And Labour are so very irrelevant they're hated more by snippers than the tories.

There's only one policy in Scotland. It's what the UK would have looked like if UKIP had come on as strongly as the SNP. 

I guess not-specifically-scottish politicians are in a tight spot with all this. My reading is that most are thinking little more than "either get on it with it or shut the fuck up" on a private basis, but it's much more difficult to get right to the full public audience. Even I think the UK should make a case - but only so that indy isn't free to lie it's heart out - and I'd guess most people who'd prefer overall* that the union continued think much the same.

(* while respecting Scotland's right to make the choice)

So those politicians are going to feel the need to make a case around the only policy in Scotland, aren't they?

Shame no one actually wants to talk about what they said. I wonder why?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

I don't really understand Surgeons tactic of narrowing the indy debate down to a single issue of staying in the single market. 
Obviously as Spain has said it will block any attempts for part of the UK to stay in, she knows its impossible for just Scotland to stay in but what if the UK stays in or gets very good access rights? She's either going to have to argue that there is enough difference to still have a referendum or try to push the debate back to something else (and each time she does this it must weaken her position) 

I think even Sturgeon has realised her mistake with that. But she's boxed herself in with it. Either she has to follow thru or she's the girl who cried wolf too many times and finished politically, and if she follows thru and loses, she's also finished politically. 

It stopped being about indy long ago, and is now about saving her career. More than anything she wants Westminster to throw her a bone that she can hold aloft in victory - so she can sneak along for a few extra years pretending she's not the girl who cried wolf too many times, while everyone knows that she is really.

And there's not really any logical arguments that can be made to stand up for Scotland in the EU either - cos if you say cutting off 15% is dreadful, then the cutting off of 60% is far worse. Plus Scotland couldn't 'stay' in the EU, it's waaaaay short of meeting the necessary criteria.

Plus deficits, currency, borders, bring greater poverty on the country, etc.

Me, I reckon indy is already over, but we just need to play out the final scenes - and I think they're much the same concluding moments in just about all versions of the script from here.

It'll need a real thing to happen in indy's favour. Can't see it myself, but it could happen I guess.

 

2 minutes ago, lost said:

Its also not very Mel Gibson is it " You may take our lives but you'll never take our trade access to Croatia's internal market!!" 

 

[Comfy Bean]

Sturgeon took Indy off the table for 2017. Its conference season. I think my point is going over your head as your 7 point plan proved :-)

Do you have a view on the Scottish Labour plan for a federal uk ?

Any thoughts on the Tories wanting a sign at the border saying higher taxes here ?

Or.....is it all about the SNP ?

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Sturgeon took Indy off the table for 2017. Its conference season. I think my point is going over your head as your 7 point plan proved :-)

She took it off the table only because she's not ready and there's no way enough people are voting indy in 2017. 

It's suggested - by Sturgeon - that Sturgeon will formally announce another ref before the end of the month.

And you think it's not important for parties to talk about being against the wrecking of Scotland? PMSL.

 

Quote

Do you have a view on the Scottish Labour plan for a federal uk ?

I think current Scottish attitudes show it wouldn't be workable.

After all, foreign policy is always held by central govt and not a devolved arm, but right now the SG is demanding sovereignty in foreign policy.

 

Quote

Any thoughts on the Tories wanting a sign at the border saying higher taxes here ?

It's what i'd expect of the tories. 

They're a party that wants lower taxes, and that is them highlighting it's not them causing higher taxes.

I've no idea for why you've mentioned it, as tho its somehow offended you...? I mean it is a fact of higher taxes, whether you think it a good thing or not.

 

Quote

Or.....is it all about the SNP ?

For the Scottish tories highlighting them wanting lower taxes, yes it is. Simple straightforwards politics.

It's the SNP who caused Scotland to have higher taxes, and it's also where the vast majority of voters are currently. It's what any sane Scottish tory party would target.

It would be daft for any party to not be highlighting the differences.

Tho no snippers want to talk about the differences, they only want to talk (false) grievance.

Edited March 4, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

   They aren't trying to "divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish"

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Just as I tend to say 'Scots' here, what is really meant is 'people in Scotland'. 

(the 'English' applies [rather than UK] for the context Khan is using, where he's specifically coming from his position as Major of London)

Anyone wanting to be really petty, or someone wanting to create divisions when there are none, could flag up his easy/loose not-quite-specific-enough use of language and take offence - false grievance, that's never happened before - while others will be laughing at them for having done the same countless numbers of times. 

And of course, Khan is coming from a position of inclusiveness, where people in England count as English and people in Scotland count as Scottish ... while those in Scotland who want to be considered inclusive are wanting to flag up that some in Scotland are not Scots.

We can carry on, if you like?

You are absolutely correct we both use Scottish & English on here to mean different things and with few if any exception we understand what the other means because of the context - e.g. I understand the word "English" means one thing when you talk about "ant English xenophobia" and something else when you talk about "English voters" and that makes sense because it is easier to say "Scottish" rather than "people born in Scotland" or "the Scottish electorate"

However, if I was making a fairly high profile public speech (especially if i happened to be a respected & experienced politician) I would take a lot more care with my words, If I wanted to talk about a party that divides people on the basis of whether they live in England or Scotland, I certainly wouldn't say they want to  "divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish"

because I would know very well that, at the very least, it is capable of a very different interpretation. Indeed,  

Unless of course I was happy for that interpretation to be there - knowing that if need be I can claim I never meant it!

And yes he comes from London which, rather like Scotland, is a pretty inclusive place but I just have an inkling that he will still understand the significance of use of language in relation to racism.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 It's the SNP who caused Scotland to have higher taxes 

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

I suspect I shall be using this quote quite a lot.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

 

and they aren't trying to "divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion"

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

what, there's no background of people living in Scotland and people living in England? Really?

Then you have nothing to want indie for. 

Yup, everyone has a background. I have a very similar background (funnily enough) to my brother who has the misfortune to live in Englandshire. I have a very different background to Angela my colleague at work who comes from Sicily. 

The SNP would "divide" me and my brother in spite of our similar background and unite me & Angela in spite of our totally different background.

the word "background" has several definitions. I would suggest this is the one that applies here 

2.1

Quote

 A person's education, experience, and social circumstances.

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

You are absolutely correct we both use Scottish & English on here to mean different things and with few if any exception we understand what the other means because of the context - e.g. I understand the word "English" means one thing when you talk about "ant English xenophobia" and something else when you talk about "English voters" and that makes sense because it is easier to say "Scottish" rather than "people born in Scotland" or "the Scottish electorate"

yep, exactly that.

 

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

However, if I was making a fairly high profile public speech (especially if i happened to be a respected & experienced politician) I would take a lot more care with my words, If I wanted to talk about a party that divides people on the basis of whether they live in England or Scotland, I certainly wouldn't say they want to  "divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish"

because I would know very well that, at the very least, it is capable of a very different interpretation. Indeed,  

Unless of course I was happy for that interpretation to be there - knowing that if need be I can claim I never meant it!

And yes he comes from London which, rather like Scotland, is a pretty inclusive place but I just have an inkling that he will still understand the significance of use of language in relation to racism.

again, you're looking for what isn't there.

which side of the border we are makes us english and scottish on the basis by the snp wish to divide us.

everything about indy is about having that distinction, ffs.

 

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

I suspect I shall be using this quote quite a lot.

yep, where i can point out that the snp wanted to give a tax cut but couldn't, so settled for doing nothing instead.

Fancy that, the SNP doing nothing. That's never happened before.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

Yup, everyone has a background. I have a very similar background (funnily enough) to my brother who has the misfortune to live in Englandshire. I have a very different background to Angela my colleague at work who comes from Sicily. 

The SNP would "divide" me and my brother in spite of our similar background and unite me & Angela in spite of our totally different background.

the word "background" has several definitions. I would suggest this is the one that applies here 

2.1

 

so nothing about the indy campaign is about claimed differences in background to unnamed (lol) others, which causes you to want to tread your own different path because of the differences which you say are much bigger/more important than all we share (else it wouldn't need the different path).

You're an amoeba and I claim my five pounds? I can't think what else it could be.